Posted on 04/23/2006 5:47:00 AM PDT by Crackingham
Lucy’s Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys. But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.
The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.
"That would be the most terrible thing in the world," said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. "That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and we’re supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and don’t want to do in the privacy of our own homes."
Ms. Gillespie, 49, said she has worked in the store for nearly 20 years and has seen people from every walk of life, including "every Sunday churchgoers."
"I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold because some people need that. The people who are riding us (the adult novelty industry) so hard are probably at home buying it (sex toys and novelties) on the Internet. It’s ridiculous." The measure would add sex toys to the state’s obscenity laws, which already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.
People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
No doubt. I have no dog in this hunt and I make no moral judgements on the people who buy and use sex toys. Furthermore, I don't believe the citizens of South Carolina are doing that either.
The issue is the storefront SALE of sex toys. That's it. Even if you didn't read the article, it's right in the title: "Bill would make sale of sex toys illegal in South Carolina".
Not possession. Not use. Not even the purchase of sex toys elsewhere. SALE.
Are you saying that, in the name of "freedom", the citizens of South Carolina should not be allowed to prohibit the sale of material they deem obscene? Then let me ask, "Where is their freedom to live their lives and raise their children how they wish?"
Oh, I understand what you're saying -- this is America, land of the free, where everything is legal and the individual chooses how they will live. No one is forcing an individual to partake.
Legalization implies societal acceptance -- an acceptable option, if you will. Well, there are things that are not acceptable to our society, and we have laws against them for that reason.
Our Constitution 'rules'. People can reasonably regulate the "-- crack house next door, prostitutes walking up and down your sidewalks, and an OTB parlor and bar across the street from where you live --" etc..
-- They cannot enact 'drug war' prohibitions, make 'outlaws' of prostitutes, or ban gambling & drinking. -- Or guns, as you avow.
C'mon, -- can you admit that the 14th's due process clause is violated by writing & enforcing unreasonable 'laws'? - Laws repugnant to the US Constitution?
Legalization implies societal acceptance -- an acceptable option, if you will. Well, there are things that are not acceptable to our society, and we have laws against them for that reason.
Are 'things' like guns "acceptable"? Apparently you thought not, -- a few years ago:
Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms.
129 posted on 11/20/2003 1:30 PM PST by robertpaulsen
My view is that the Founders were saying something like this:
"Let's design a box. Inside this box, government will exist. Everything outside this box cannot and shall not be touched by government. Let's name some specific instances of things government shall not touch, just to be clear about it. But remember these are only examples -- ideally government shall not touch anything outside this box."
Technically, the "government" they would have been referring to was the federal government, because that's what the Constitution was specifically addressing. But by logical extension, my libertarian preference is that the State governments exist inside boxes that are even smaller and less intrusive than the federal government box, and contain the same explicitly named limitations as the federal box, as a baseline minimum.
412 Ryan Spock
Paulsen responds:
Well, that's just the opposite of federalism. The Founding Fathers believed the states to be much more powerful than than the federal government [not entirely true] -- the powers given to the newly formed federal government were "few and defined".
-- Few indeed, but the Constitutional 'box' included power over the States in Article VI to enforce the 'Law of the Land', which includes enforcing all Amendments to the Constitution.
The Founders believed it much easier to control their own state than some government body hundreds of miles away;
True enough, but there are prohibitions on the powers of States within the Constitution.
therefore, they weren't concerned about the power given to their own state.
Belied by the clear words of Article VI, "-- any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"
The U.S. Supreme Court today dictates how we live our lives, not the state in which we live.
You're kidding yourself. They both "dictate".. Unconstitutionally.
The USSC is the entitity that says our kids can't pray in school, can't display religious symbols, can't even dicuss political issues 30 days before an election!, must allow abortion, must allow sodomy, on and on. Where do I go, Ryan Spock, to raise my kids the way I want? What state offers me the kind of life I want to live? Where's MY freedom, Ryan Spock?
You seek the contradictory 'freedom' to prohibit. -- And as long as you give that unlimited power to a States 'majority', you will find no actual liberty. Catch 22.
I understand what you mean, and this is where my simple analogy breaks down somewhat (after all, we're attempting to use a simple thing to illustrate a much more complex thing). But if you'll indulge me a little and allow me to return to this analogy, I'd like to try and understand your view.
So, we have the box in the middle of the room, and inside that box, is the federal government, strictly contained as defined by the Constitution. Are you saying that federalism dictates that ALL SPACE outside this box belongs inherently to the states? I know that the constitution of each of those states defines the size, shape, and scope of the box that each state's government exists in, but does this mean that in your view, there is no space inherently reserved for the individual people that make up those states, exclusive of the state's power to infringe? I know, as we discussed earlier, that the courts have not ruled that the 14th Amendment includes the Bill of Rights as being fully incorporated on the States. But it sounds like you're saying that federalism could allow for an individual state constitution to say in essence, "We own ALL SPACE outside the federal government box for the people in our State, and intend to place extreme restrictions on those people because that's what the people want", and that if it really was what the people wanted in that state (by way of their representatives of course, and notwithstanding the Supremacy Clause, due process, etc) then the state is absolutely free to do so. Is that correct? If so, does that disturb you at all? (I don't want to put words in your mouth, but my guess is that you'll say "No, because I trust the States to protect liberty", or something to that effect).
The U.S. Supreme Court today dictates how we live our lives, not the state in which we live.
And as I noted early on in our discussion, this is why, as somebody who values liberty, I do see the appeal of federalism to a certain degree. You sound like you're agreeing that the federal "Blob" has escaped from its box and is infringing all over the space reserved for the states and the people. I guess I'm trying to determine how extensively you view the Constitution as permitting each state to regulate the individual liberties of the people in that state (and it sounds like you're saying "To whatever extent they wish, since the federal government is over there in the box and can't stop it"). I concede that it does seem to follow, that if you are going to call on federal powers to exclude the states from infringing on certain parts of the space outside the federal box, then you are granting the federal government additional powers outside the box. Is that correct?
It's too bad he has to use that bit of sophistry. - But I'm sure he realizes that if he doesn't, his whole 'Governments can be trusted with the power to prohibit' theory comes crashing down.
Our 10th makes it absolutely clear that powers not delegated to governments are reserved "to the people".
Usually SCOTUS doesn't have much use for the Tenth -- particularly libs -- but we're likely to get Ginsberg's vote at least. Why do you think they call her "Buzzy"?
In effect that's the whole dispute here in a nutshell; -- people as dissimilar as paulsen & ginsberg can agree that governments should have the power to prohibit.
Prohibitionism is a social disease that infects both political parties.
OR extreme freedoms, if you will. My heavens, just how did we survive as a country for 150 years prior to the establishment of a federal government?
Our republic, as designed by the Founding Fathers, created a federal government with very few powers. It was the Founding Fathers who trusted their state to protect their liberties.
The precursor to the U.S. Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, demonstrated how the states guarded their independence -- it gave Congress the power over military and monetary affairs, for example, but no authority over the states to force them to comply with requests for troops or revenue.
Yes, I trust the state to protect liberty. Who's passing all the concealed carry laws? (Hint: It's not Congress. They've been busy trying to take your guns away. It's not the U.S. Supreme Court. They've been busy limiting your religious freedom, freedom of speech, property rights and finding emanations in penumbras. Bad enough that these whacky interpretations apply to the federal government -- thanks to the 14th amendment, they also apply to the states.)
"I concede that it does seem to follow, that if you are going to call on federal powers to exclude the states from infringing on certain parts of the space outside the federal box, then you are granting the federal government additional powers outside the box. Is that correct?"
Yes, primarily the judiciary. The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution and forces that interpretation, via the 14th amendment, upon the states. That was not the intent of the Founders. If a state protected free speech in the State Constitution, it was up to the state supreme court to decide if it protected nude dancing, for example. Or if freedom of religion in the State Constitution allowed a Nativity scene at Christmas on the court house lawn.
Look at all the recent areas of controversy (abortion, school prayer, "under God", flag burning, sodomy, eminent domain, quotas/preferences, CFR, ). Almost all of them have to do with U.S. Supreme Court decisions being forced on the states.
It's to bad he has to use that bit of sophistry. - But I'm sure he realizes that if he doesn't, his whole 'Governments can be trusted with the power to prohibit' theory comes crashing down.
Our 10th makes it absolutely clear that powers not delegated to governments are reserved "to the people".
paulsen goes on to claim:
Yes, I trust the state to protect liberty.
Who's passing all the concealed carry laws? (Hint: It's not Congress. They've been busy trying to take your guns away.
Some States are taking away guns, paulsen. - And also you ignore that most States are in effect 'licensing' carrying guns. Only two are actually not infringing on our right to bear arms.
If a state protected free speech in the State Constitution, it was up to the state supreme court to decide if it protected nude dancing, for example.
No one is claiming 'nude dancing' can't be regulated by reasonable State laws. -- The USSC has upheld the principle that nude dancing can't be prohibited by police state methods that violate due process.
Or if freedom of religion in the State Constitution allowed a Nativity scene at Christmas on the court house lawn.
Again, States cannot allow a specific religions 'establishments' to be respected at the State Court House.
Look at all the recent areas of controversy (abortion, school prayer, "under God", flag burning, sodomy, eminent domain, quotas/preferences, CFR, ). Almost all of them have to do with U.S. Supreme Court decisions being forced on the states.
So? Why aren't the States fighting back? -- Could it be that the politicians want their power to prohibit items like guns & drugs to be respected by feds? -- And hope that by not 'bucking the system', they will eventually get the power to ban abortion, sodomy, etc, and mandate things like school prayer?
It's to bad he has to use that bit of sophistry. - But I'm sure he realizes that if he doesn't, his whole 'Governments can be trusted with the power to prohibit' theory comes crashing down.
Our 10th makes it absolutely clear that powers not delegated to governments are reserved "to the people".
paulsen goes on to claim:
Yes, I trust the state to protect liberty.
Who's passing all the concealed carry laws? (Hint: It's not Congress. They've been busy trying to take your guns away.
Some States are taking away guns, paulsen. - And also you ignore that most States are in effect 'licensing' carrying guns. Only two are actually not infringing on our right to bear arms.
If a state protected free speech in the State Constitution, it was up to the state supreme court to decide if it protected nude dancing, for example.
No one is claiming 'nude dancing' can't be regulated by reasonable State laws. -- The USSC has upheld the principle that nude dancing can't be prohibited by police state methods that violate due process.
Or if freedom of religion in the State Constitution allowed a Nativity scene at Christmas on the court house lawn.
Again, States cannot allow a specific religions 'establishments' to be respected at the State Court House.
Look at all the recent areas of controversy (abortion, school prayer, "under God", flag burning, sodomy, eminent domain, quotas/preferences, CFR, ). Almost all of them have to do with U.S. Supreme Court decisions being forced on the states.
So? Why aren't the States fighting back? -- Could it be that the politicians want their power to prohibit items like guns & drugs to be respected by feds? -- And hope that by not 'bucking the system', they will eventually get the power to ban abortion, sodomy, etc, and mandate things like school prayer?
sex shops along the border? Can you imagine a "Pedro's South of the border" for sex toys? Hee hee! What huge item will be visible from the interstate?
Prolly cause ole Ralphie boy can't even get an inflatible doll to put out for him!!!
I always thought that word meant something else. ;D
It does in Yiddish, anyway...
"Oh, I forgot... [insert my post here] I guess some folks wouldn't recognize sarcasm if it bit them in the butt." With a bill of such idiocy as this the boundaries between sarcasm, satire and the actual actions of politicians is actually hard to distinguish:-(
Agreed! The line does get kinda blurred. Sorry, I gotta go, my vibrator is buzzing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.